Classification of Puripapad and Unfried Papad as Papad under HSN 19059040

The court ruled that the applicant's products, Puripapad and Unfried Papad, are classified as Papad under HSN 19059040 due to their ingredients, manufacturing process, and characteristics, despite variations in shape and size. The judgment emphasized consumer perception, common parlance, and previous case law precedents in determining the classification of the goods. The ruling clarified that the products fall under the Papad category unless served for immediate consumption.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of the goods intended to be produced, such as Puripapad and Unfried Papad.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Puripapad and Unfried Papad:

Manufacturing Process and Ingredients:
The applicant, M/s. Global Gruh Udyog, detailed the manufacturing processes and ingredients for both Puripapad and Unfried Papad. For Unfried Papad, the ingredients include wheat flour, rice flour, salt, various spices, hing, lentil beans powder, papadkhar, and oil. The process involves mixing, cooking, sheeting, cutting, drying, and packing. Puripapad uses wheat flour, aata, rava, salt, sago starch, papadkhar, and oil, following a similar process but with slight variations in drying time and machinery used.

Applicant’s Contention:
The applicant contends that their products, being unfried and not ready for consumption, should be classified under HSN 1905, specifically under the sub-heading for Papad. They argue that the products meet the criteria set out in Chapter 19 of the HSN classification under GST, which includes preparations of cereals, flour, starch, or milk; pastry cooks’ products.

Legal Framework and Precedents:
The judgment references several legal precedents and the importance of common parlance in classification. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, New Delhi v. Connaught Plaza Restaurant (P) Ltd. emphasized the common parlance test, stating that it is essential to classify products based on their identity in the market and common understanding. Similarly, the case of CCE, Nagpur v. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd. reinforced the significance of consumer perception in product classification.

Characteristics of Papad:
The judgment outlines the main characteristics of Papad, noting that it is typically made from flours of pulses, rice, sago, and other cereals, with added spices and oil. It is a thin, wafer-like product that becomes crispy upon roasting or frying and is traditionally an accompaniment to Indian meals.

Technological Advancements:
The judgment acknowledges that technological advancements have allowed for the production of Papad in various shapes and sizes, not limited to the traditional round shape. This flexibility in shape and size does not alter the classification of the product as Papad.

Relevant Case Laws:
Several case laws were cited to support the classification of the applicant’s products as Papad, regardless of shape or size. These include:
- Shiv Shakti Gold Finger v. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Jaipur, where it was held that Papad remains Papad irrespective of shape and ingredients.
- State of Karnataka v. Vasavamba Stores, where Fryums in uncooked/unfried form were classified as Papad.
- M/s. Avadh Food Products v. State of Gujarat and M/s. Swethin Food Products v. State of Gujarat, where Fryums were classified as Papad under the GVAT Act.

Conclusion and Ruling:
The judgment concludes that the applicant’s products, due to their ingredients, manufacturing process, and use, fall under the classification of Papad. The ruling states that the subject goods are classified under HSN 19059040, which includes Papad by whatever name it is known, except when served for consumption.

RULING:
The subject goods are classified at HSN 19059040.

---